SchansBlog

Thanks for coming! I plan to post a lot of interesting articles and comment on a wide range of things-- from political to religious, from private to public, from formal writing on public policy to snippets on random observations.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

quotes from (and a few thoughts on) Hayek's Road to Serfdom

Hayek dedicates The Road to Serfdomto "the socialists of all parties". Gotta love that start, noting that socialism and crony capitalism (a later topic) are common among the politicians and partisans of the major political parties. Hayek (xiii; page references from the original/1944 version) uses this deTocqueville quote in the preface about the slow removal of freedom in a "new kind of servitude" [to government]: "It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated
rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the
most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.
The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men
are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from
acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it
does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and
stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a
flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the
shepherd."

Hayek quotes FDR (once) and it's a doozy: "not that the system of free enterprise for profit has failed in this generation, but that it has not yet been tried..." Hayek on "individualism" (14, 59): “Individualism has a bad name today and the term has come to be connected with egotism and selfishness. But the individualism of which we speak in contrast to socialism and all
other forms of collectivism has no necessary connection with these... It does not assume, as is often
asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely
starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of
imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more
than a sector of the needs of the whole society...From this the individualist concludes that the individuals should be allowed, within defined limits, to follow their own values..."

Hayek is not a hard-core Libertarian, easily finding a role for government in areas beyond "institutions" (p. 38-39; establishing an environment that encourages productivity-- e.g., by protecting property rights)-- into areas such as regulation of poisonous substances, to limit working hours, to regulate sanitation and safety (as long as it promotes the general welfare, rather than targeting specific actors; p. 37). See: Walter Block's article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies for more detail on this. Hayek on the "inevitability" and slippery slope of central planning and socialism (43): "It is a revealing fact that few planners are content to say that central
planning is desirable. Most of them affirm that we can no longer choose
but are compelled by circumstances beyond our control to substitute
planning for competition. The myth is deliberately cultivated that we
are embarking on the new course not out of free will but because
competition is spontaneously eliminated by technological changes which
we neither can reverse nor should wish to prevent. This argument is
rarely developed at any length—it is one of the assertions taken over by
one writer from another until, by mere iteration, it has come to be
accepted as an established fact."

Hayek (56) quotes Adam Smith on the troubles of central planning: "The statesman who should attempt to direct
private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would
not only load himself with most unnecessary attention but assume an
authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate
whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of man
who have folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise
it."

I love this poke by Hayek on supposed advocates and the fetish of democracy (70-71): “It may well be true that our generation talks and thinks too much of
democracy, and too little of the values which it
serves...Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safe-guarding
internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means
infallible or certain... Democratic control may prevent power from becoming arbitrary, but it does not do so by its mere existence. If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power."

Hayek on crony capitalism (194): "the impetus of
the movement toward totalitarianism comes mainly from the two great vested
interests: organized capital and organized labor. Probably the greatest
menace of all is the fact that the policies of these two most powerful
groups point in the same direction." Continuing (196-197): "Unless the argument of this book has been
completely misunderstood, the author will not be suspected of any
tenderness toward the capitalists if he stresses here that it would
nevertheless be a mistake to put the blame for the modern movement
toward monopoly exclusively or mainly on that class. Their propensity in
this direction is neither new nor would it by itself be likely to
become a formidable power. The fatal development was that they have
succeeded in enlisting the support of an ever increasing number of other
groups and, with their help, in obtaining the support of the state...Private monopoly is scarcely ever complete and
even more rarely of long duration or able to disregard potential
competition. But a state monopoly is always a state-protected
monopoly—protected against both potential competition and effective
criticism...The machinery of monopoly becomes
identical with the machinery of the state, and the state itself becomes
more and more identified with the interests of those who run things than
with the interests of the people in general."

Monday, September 24, 2012

Dreisbach on "Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State"

Thomas Jefferson and
the Wall of Separation Between Church and State, written by Daniel Dreisbach,
professor at American
University.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof ...."

The first reference to “the wall [of separation between
church and state]” by the SCOTUS shows up nearly 100 years later—through Chief
Justice Morrison Waite in Reynolds vs.
U.S. (1879): Jefferson's reply to the
Danbury Baptists "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration
of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

The SCOTUS “rediscovered” the phrase through Justice Hugo
Black’s use of it in Everson v. Board of
Education (1947): "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause
against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of
separation between church and state…That wall must be kept high and
impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Dreisbach opens by observing that “The pervasive influence
of the ‘wall’ in law, policy and discourse raises some important questions” (5)—most
notably, is the wall metaphor accurate to the 1st Amendment and is
the contemporary use of “the wall” faithful to Jefferson’s
meaning (to the extent this matters)? Similar questions arise later (55): “What
does ‘the wall’ separate? What is meant by ‘church’? What is meant by ‘state’?
Does ‘state’ include civil government in all its forms?”

Moreover, Dreisbach argues from the context that Jefferson was speaking of the federal government—and the
President not asserting powers not afforded to him or the Congress, through the
Constitution (66). “In short, the wall Jefferson erected in the Danbury letter was between the federal government on the
one side and church authorities and state government on the other…Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation
as a state official and refusing to issue a similar proclamation as the federal
chief executive.” (68) [See also: any policy differences between execution at the
state and federal levels—most notably, these days, as seen with health care “reform”.
It’s amazing that smart people can’t draw this distinction!]

As Dreisbach concludes: “This controverts the conventional
notion that Jefferson’s metaphor encapsulated
a general constitutional, prudential, and libertarian doctrine of church-state
relationships and religious liberty.” (69) One other irony I caught: people who
are fond of a larger version of ‘the wall’ here aren’t nearly as fond of the clear
wall erected by the 10th Amendment.

Dreisbach opens chapter 7 on the use of the wall in
discourse—with a wonderful quote from Judge Benjamin Cardozo in a 1926 court
case: “Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to
liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it.” From there, he traces the
evolution of thought on—and use of—the wall.

In terms of substance, Dreisbach (25) also provides context
for the exchange of the six letters (all of which he reproduces), including the
idea that private letters often became (very) public communication (27). Chapter
5 lays out pre-Jeffersonian references to the wall, including the probable
source(s) for Jefferson’s use of the phrase. And
chapter 6 lists other wall-like references from earlier writers and Jefferson’s contemporaries. These two chapters were both
unexpected and really interesting.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, Dreisbach’s
work is accessible and useful for discerning what was meant by the Constitution
and by Jefferson in his famous phrase.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists (esp. those who agree with Hugo Black’s take) on
both sides are the least likely to read a work like this.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

the key to Israel's history: the rejection of Babylon and Egypt

I love the observation in Peterson's "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction" (p. 31) that "The whole history of Israel is set in motion by two...acts of 'world rejection', which freed the people for an affirmation of God: the rejection of Mesopotamia in the days of Abraham and the rejection of Egypt in the days of Moses. All the wisdom and strength of the ancient world were in Mesopotamia and Egypt."

The Bible indicates that we are to cast off "the world" (defined as the world "system" in opposition to God; I Jn 2:15-17) without casting off all aspects of the world. Look at the work of God in Israel's history-- e.g., with respect to the
re-casting of pagan myths and pagan practices such as circumcision. Look at the lives of other Biblical heroes-- most notably, Daniel in chapter 1 (as he famously rejects some but certainly not all that Babylon has to offer) and in later chapters as he works within pagan administrations. Look at the call to Jesus' disciples-- that they be "of the world", but not "in the world" (e.g., Jn 9:5). Look at Paul, quoting pagan poets three times and being able to speak to all sorts of non-believer and non-disciple audiences.And so on. As you look deeper, it becomes obvious that applying these principles is not simple. Look at Israel post-Egypt and the money they're given on the way out the
door-- a chunk of which builds the Tabernacle and a chunk of which
builds the Golden Calf. We use money but we're not to worship Mammon. We eat but we're not to be gluttons. We can drink alcohol, but not unto drunkenness. We are commanded to enjoy God's good gifts, but to the extent of idolatry. And so on.

It's easy to absorb and be absorbed by the world. It's easy to avoid the world and its influences. But neither is Biblical. Salvation starts with an admission and rejection and payment for our sin. Discipleship begins with a general rejection of Babylon and Egypt-- and then wrestles with how to be "in the world" but not "of the world".

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Prothero's "Religious Literacy"

Stephen Prothero is a professor of
religious studies and prolific writer/thinker at the intersection of religion,
history, modern times, and education. He seems like a relatively dispassionate
observer—more of a tame, cultural Christian than any sort of fervent disciple
of Jesus—and so, he is well-suited to speak in objective terms on contentious
questions.

Prothero’s thesis in Religious Literacy is the importance of
religious literacy—with a historical review of literacy in America and a
call to promoting literacy in the future. In the opening, he contrasts his
effort with E.D. Hirsch’s work on cultural literacy. Prothero sees religious
literacy as a means to educate (5), whereas Hirsch seems to see cultural
literacy as a primary end of education.

Prothero sees religious illiteracy as
equally pervasive but more dangerous, given its importance in making sense of
the world—in both an historical and contemporary sense. He is “committed to
seeing the study of religion as an indispensable part of a liberal education.”
(11) To that end, he provides a 107-page “Dictionary of Religious Literacy” in
chapter 6 and a six-page “Religious Literacy Quiz” in an appendix.

Prothero describes a period of “Eden” in America
in this regard—and then “the Fall”. He attributes the Fall primarily to the 2nd
Great Awakening in the early-mid 19th C and to post-WWII “revival”.
(He argues against the 1960s’s cultural shifts and the famous Supreme Court
decisions as primary.) The latter comports with my own sense of the 1950s as
the highpoint of American Civil Religion—a deistic, moralistic faith that
opposed communism. One clear sign of the limits of 1950s religion: its
adherents produced the children of the 60s.

Striving to explain the balance between
religious and secular interests throughout America’s history, he observes that
today, “Both the RR and the SL feel besieged…The emotions on both sides of this
question are understandable, though the irony of the situation—in which each
side sees itself as a victim and believes that the other is seizing control of
the country—seems lost on everyone concerned…neither faith nor faithlessness is
close to either bankruptcy or monopoly.” (27) And he argues it has always been
this way—“secular by law…[and] religious by choice”—from the Founding Fathers
to the three most recent presidents (28b-30).

Today, K-12 texts treat religion as “an
afterthought or an embarrassment” with a “jack-in-the-box approach: religious
characters pop up here and there, typically with all of the color and substance
of a circus clown.” (55) This is understandable in part, particularly with
younger students, given the desire to make history more interesting. But it’s
hardly a method to brag about. Instead, Prothero notes that “none of the
classic events in American history…can be understood without knowledge of the
religious motivations of [those] who made them happen.” From there, he gives a
10,000-foot view with six pages of examples (56-62).

Why did schools take a “steer clear”
approach (68-69)? To play it safe; confusion about the relevant Supreme Court
decisions; ignorance about the establishment clause of the Constitution;
conflation of “the crucial distinction between theology and religious studies”;
and the secular biases of textbook writers.

Why did religious literacy fade in the
churches? Between churches, believers were looking for common ground among
denominations. (Ironically, tolerance among Protestants usually combined with
intolerance toward Catholics.) “More than the forces of secularism, it was this
sort of religion that would do religious literacy in.” (107, 118-119).

Within churches, sermons emphasized
storytelling over the Bible and doctrine. There was a growing emphasis on
passion and experience over knowledge and doctrine—even to the point that
knowledge was seen as an opponent of piety: “What for generations had been
shameful—religious illiteracy—would become a badge of honor in a nation
besotted with the self-made man and the spirit-filled preacher.” (109-111)

In the schools, it “became nearly
impossible to discuss religion in most public schools” (even as early as the 19th
C.). There was a shift toward morals over doctrine; textbooks became
secularized; tame religious rites became civil more than religious; morality
substituted for religion. “The lowest common-denominator Protestantism once
preached in public schools morphed into general Christianity, then into generic
moralism…not so much salvation as prosperity” (124-127, 135-138)

The famous “revival” of the 1950s was
largely of civil religion and “the American way of life”, with passing
references to “Judeo-Christian” religion, Eisenhower’s “a deeply felt religious
faith and I don’t care what it is”, and Will Herberg’s “faith in faith”.
(141-143) “In conforming themselves to American culture, Protestantism, Catholicism
and Judaism had become little more than parallel paths up the mountain of the
American dream.” (9)

Dallas Willard makes similar observations
in The Divine Conspiracy, but
distinguishes between the Religious Left’s social gospel (often at the expense of
a full-blooded Gospel and discipleship) and the Religious Right’s focus on
ascension to minimal doctrinal beliefs (what he labels a “bar-code
faith”—getting a sticker slapped on you so you can get scanned into heaven).

As for solutions, Prothero (160) notes
that the SCOTUS gave constitutional permission for the academic story of
religion in Abington v. Schempp
(1963). And he cites William Brennan in the majority opinion: “plainly does not
foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between
religious sects…impossible to teach meaningfully many subjects in the social
sciences or the humanities without some mention of religion.” (160).

As for specifics, first, Prothero
(165-167) proposes one required course on the Bible in high school—neither to
be preached nor debunked; to include (but not be limited to) teaching it as
literature; to discuss its influence on economics, politics, art, music,
history, etc.; and to familiarize students with it in a religious literacy sort
of way. In particular, he recommends the reading of at least Genesis (Leon Kass
would agree with this!) and Matthew.

Second, Prothero (168-171) recommends a
required course in world religions in high school—generally, “the seven great
religious traditions” with the occasional tailoring to local circumstances
(e.g., native American religions). He cites a public school in Modesto, CA
that has a course like this one.

Prothero notes that teachers would need to
be trained to execute these two courses well and argues that parents should be
given an opt-out. Here, I think he’s optimistic about how this would play out
in local politics—and misses the larger, underlying economic picture: the real
problem here is that monopoly power of the government’s K-12 education (172).

For Christians who are excited about
harnessing these ideas to Christian ends, I’d warn you to be (really) careful
what you ask for. Imagine who will teach these courses. And even if you get
good teaching, would it promote a Christian worldview and encourage discipleship
with Jesus or inoculate people with a safe version of pluralistic religion?
Prothero makes a similarly sobering observation to open the book—that the
countries where church participation is mandated are places where the Church
has been emasculated (1). If you’re an opponent of religion in general or
Christianity in particular, ironically, the best way to harm it might be to
mandate it.

Monday, September 17, 2012

excerpts from Marilynne Robinson's "Absence of Mind"

A number of fun little quotes from Absence of Mind: "The old, confident distinction between
materiality and non-materiality is not a thing modern science can
endorse...modern physics and cosmology are conspicuous by their absence
from the arguments of these self-declared champions of science, reason
and enlightenment." (p. 112-113, ix-x)

"Religion is a point of entry for certain
anthropological methods and assumptions whose tendencies are distinctly
invidious. It is treated as a proof of persisting primitivity...a
hermeneutics of condescension." (p. 14)

"If the Christianity [Bertrand] Russell
loathes is the Christianity he encountered, then that is a form in which
the religion has lived in the world. Others have encountered other
Christianities. This is one more instance of the universe of
difficulties that surrounds a definition of one religion, not to mention
religion as a whole." (p. 12)

"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all." (p. 12) --Bertrand Russell, 1927

She has a nice little section on Noah's Ark and the Gilgamesh epic (p. 25-26). She neuters Steven Pinker on the mind (p. 111-112). And she has a wonderful chapter on "The Strange History of Altruism", including a focus on E.O. Wilson's arguments (p. 56-57), Dawkins' memes (p. 65-71), and what turns out ironically to be "parascientific reasoning" (p. 72-73).

She introduces this last idea early-on-- and I'll close with a quote on that angle (p. 2):

"I have no opinion about the likelihood that science, at the top of its
bent, will ultimately arrive at accounts of consciousness, identity,
memory, and imagination that are sufficient in the terms of scientific
inquiry. Nor do I object, in our present very limited state of
knowledge, to hypotheses being offered in the awareness that, in the
honorable tradition of science, they are liable to being proved grossly
wrong. What I wish to question are not the methods of science, but the
methods of a kind of argument that claims the authority of science or
highly specialized knowledge, that assumes a protective coloration that
allows it to pass for science yet does not practice the self-discipline
or self-criticism for which science is distinguished."

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Rob Bell's Love Wins

I'm late to the “Love Wins”
debate/discussion, but better late than never! (I should also note that-- for better/worse-- I have no other significant experience with Bell's work.)
__________________

Probably the most famous portion of the book—and the moment at the heart of
attempts to market the book—is its opening on Gandhi (1-2). Bell relays the story of someone responding
to the inclusion of a Gandhi quote on a piece of art. Someone attached a note
on/near the art which said “Reality check: He’s in hell.”

Bell’s reply: “Really? Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have
confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody
decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?”

A few thoughts. As in the rest of the book, Bell asks a ton of questions here. I didn’t
count, but there may be more questions than statements—and there are certainly
more questions than answers.

From one angle, this is a good sort of frustration for Bell to offer his readers. Asking questions
is in line with God’s approach (whose first recorded words post-Fall are
questions). Questions are also frequent in the ministry of Jesus. They promote
thought on complex topics. They’re helpful for people to take ownership of what
they believe. And so on.

But questions can come from a bad place. To note, the Devil’s first recorded
words are also questions—and Satan uses questions to mess with Jesus in the
Wilderness! In sum, questions stir the soul—for good and sometimes for ill.

Combining the two points: Questions
make it difficult to infer the motives from which the questions emanate. Are
the questions to stir thought, to play defense, to offer a temptation, and so
on? And thus, questions also make it easier to map our own concerns and
supposition onto those offering the questions. Not surprisingly, then, Bell’s book has been
addressed with everything from serious wrestling to simplistic attacks.

So, what is Bell trying to say with the Gandhi example
and the questions that follow? There are a few likely possibilities. First, Bell may want to subtly
promote a doctrinal position (or at least promote thought about it) that is
outside Christian “conventional wisdom” (or even outside the pale of Christian
orthodoxy)—some form of “inclusivism”, “annihilationism”, or “universalism”. (I don't think that's his primary goal, but more on that later.) Bell speaks directly to
inclusivism, perhaps alludes to annihilationism and seems to flirt with
universalism.

“Annihilationism” is the
belief that those who do not want to be with God in Heaven will be
“annihilated”—their souls will be destroyed. (Various views on annihilationism
speculate on when that will take place.) In a nutshell, instead of receiving
eternal punishing (punishing throughout eternity), one will receive an eternal
punishment (in the sense of finality). Although not the conventional view on
Hell, etc., it is within the pale of orthodoxy since there is strong Scriptural
support for the position. (Bell
doesn’t address this directly—which is really surprising-- unless his primary point is not "doctrinal".)

Universalism is the belief that
(most) all will be saved through Jesus, whether they accept Jesus or God’s
grace on Earth or not. There are a variety of approaches here, but they range
from a God who isn’t all that Holy or a God who is Holy but provides a second
chance in the afterlife (that is rarely if ever refused). Neither is
acceptable.

Inclusivism is the belief that all are saved through Jesus (John 14:6)—but
behind that, by God’s grace. So, one could be saved by embracing the grace of
God—through the saving work of Christ Jesus—without knowing anything about the
bearded man from Galilee. This view allows for a smoother transition from the
OT and provides a compelling answer to some difficult questions, such as how
God deals with “those who have never heard the Gospel”.

Here’s
how C.S. Lewis expressed it (Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 5): "Here is another thing which used to
puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined
to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the
truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are.
We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ [see: John 14:6];
we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

Here’s how Bell puts it (154-155):
“What [Jesus] doesn’t say [about Jn 14:6] is how, or when, or in what manner
the mechanism functions…He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father
through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He
simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and
love and restore the world is happening through him.”

Bell continues by recognizing that an open door here can
lead to many different inferences: “As soon as [this] door is opened…many
Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore,
the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so on. Not
true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.”

Such a statement is clear
enough, but especially in the context of an approach where Bell is reticent to make (strong) statements.
When he makes a strong statement in that context, the statement seems that much
stronger. The upshot: Bell seems like an inclusivist (or at least,
wants that to be on the table), rather than a universalist.

So, beyond doctrine, where might
Bell be going
with his Gandhi opening? I think he’s clearly concerned about one point. (I
think he would add a second point; if not, it’s worth adding anyway.)

For that, let’s go back to
the preface:

“The plot [of Christianity]
has been lost…hijacked…” (vii-viii) Is there any doubt here? Yes, often—throughout
history and from a variety of angles. There are the squeaky wheels who
advertise falsely or poorly for Christianity. There’s hypocrisy in the Church.
There’s an over-emphasis on religious doctrine and social issues—or at least a
misperception, in the public’s eye. And so on. In particular, Bell is concerned (presumably through what he
sees in everyday ministry) with those who see or sell Christianity as
Pharisaical, hateful, narrow, joyless, etc.

He opens the preface with “Jesus’
story is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us.”
(vii) I think I know what he means—and I’m ok with that; if I had to reduce “the
story” to one thing, then yes. But such an exercise leads to all sorts of
misconceptions and heresies. So fortunately, we don’t have to reduce God or His
story or Jesus’ ministry to one thing!

Bell also
reassures us that “doubts are ok”. (ix) Absolutely, yes; they are the flip side
of faith. All of us have doubts and varying degrees of faith—about all sorts of
things. That’s the nature of living in a world with (highly) imperfect
information. But this is an uncomfortable point for many people, especially in
the realm of religion and theology. And so, this is an important point for Bell to make.

So, I think Bell wants a different voice and less of a
tin-ear when it comes to living out and speaking about our faith—to those who
have not yet embraced the Good News. In other words, what bothered Bell about the Gandhi
comment was its sanctimonious tone. That's why the inclusion of "And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?" seems like a key to understanding Bell's primary goal.)

Here’s another thing that’s ridiculous about the Gandhi comment: the idea that,
even if Gandhi did not embrace the grace of God, he offered nothing of value to
the world—that a work of art would necessarily be diminished by one of his
quotes. This is a conflation of the idea that we have no good works before God
with the idea that the works of all people can have value in day-to-day living.
In fact, everything is wheat/chaff—and the questions are the extent of the
wheat and the wisdom to discern and apply that wheat. Paul quoted pagan poets. God
spoke through donkeys. God used Samson mightily. And so on. If it was good
enough for Paul, it might be good enough for an artist.

Two other things worthy of
note:

I enjoyed his perspective on
the rich man and Lazarus (75): “The rich man saw himself as better than
Lazarus, and now in hell, the rich man still
sees himself about Lazarus. It’s no wonder Abraham says there’s a chasm that
can’t be crossed. The chasm is the rich man’s heart! It hasn’t changed, even in
death and torment and agony.”

I appreciate Bell’s
emphasis on a broader definition of “saved” (26-27, 41, 45, 48-50). In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard
talks about how the Christian Right tends to reduce the Gospel to adherence to
a few important doctrinal beliefs, getting into a wonderful heaven down the
road. Our views of the Gospel are usually attenuated—and focused on a future
heaven instead of life now, on earth. Instead, eternal life has already begun
for the Christian. It is both the now and the “not yet”.

___________________

As for reviews, I found these most helpful-- from sources that are generally quite thoughtful.

Here’s Stan Guthrie in B&C with a charitable take on Bell, focused on two books that handle Bell’s
book relatively well (“charitably and forcefully” in Guthrie’s estimation)—one
by Mark Galli and another by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle.

Guthrie cites Chan making an
important point—that can lead to good questions coming from a bad place: “It’s
time for us to stop apologizing for God and start apologizing to Him for being
embarrassed by the ways He has chosen to reveal Himself.” If Bell or others ask from a posture of
embarrassment about God, they are in error. Hopefully, they’re coming from a
posture about embarrassment toward some Christians and the resulting damage to
the Gospel.

“It is obvious that Bell has spent a great
deal of time with a great number of sinners. It is obvious that he cares for
them, that he wants them to find the love and peace that only Christ can
bring…That said, and with a desire to see Bell do a great deal of good for the
kingdom he hopes to advance, Love Wins is a pitiful
piece of coffee-shop thinking and foggy communication. It reads like an
extended blog post, and feels like one too…a pile of wandering wondering
without a clear destination…In the end, Love Wins
does raise questions that should be discussed. But it raises them breathily and
from a strange place, a place where cultural loyalties are too much in play,
and God has been told to watch where He treads or we might have to find another
one.”

Funny and arguably accurate, but critiquing style is a slippery slope. I don't think this applies to Wilson, but e.g., if most of your church members wear suits/dresses and you have a choir with robes, you should be ok with critiques of your subjective choices-- if you're willing to throw rocks about such things.

In any case, Wilson makes a funny observation about Bell on matters of style: “Bizarrely, Bell is at his most
concrete and most confident when making aesthetic claims—and not only when he's
talking about a surreal painting on his grandmother's wall. He puts on his
critic's cap and passes incredible judgment on the history of the whole
stinking world.”

On Bell’s
style: “Bell
doesn’t really argue his case. Rather, he hurls a set of disjointed statements
to see what sticks…he clearly knows how to reach people untrained in the art of
reading extended arguments filled with nuance…”

Oakes also connects Bell to Lewis: “Generous views of salvation do not, of
course, necessarily entail the conclusion that hell is empty, and Bell never goes that far.
Like C. S. Lewis, though, he would insist that a person has to choose
hell: ‘God gives us what we want, and if that’s hell, we can have it. We have
that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free’.”

And then this on the incentives of
having Hell and God not revealing the details clearly: “So if hell exists—has
to exist—then how many are saved and how many damned? Revelation wisely
withholds that information. Avery Cardinal Dulles said in these pages several
years ago that if we antecedently knew that hell was filled with the massa
damnata and heaven not much more populated than your typical Shriners’
convention, despair would result. Correlatively, if we knew that only a
few—those notorious applicants for the role of Antichrist, like Hitler and
Stalin—were in hell, lassitude would set in.”

Groothuis connects Love Wins to Bell’s other book, Velvet
Elvis (a book with which I am unfamiliar), explaining that he was not surprised
by either the style or substance of Love Wins. He is generally unimpressed with
both, although he has commendation for Bell
on his discussion of the fullness of “salvation”. He also expresses
appreciation for Bell
raising certain passages and questions that have not been “taken seriously
enough”.

_____________________

All in all, Love Wins is an easy
read and probably worth a look, especially for those who have been burned by or are in close proximity to Pharisees or Pharisee-lites. The fruit of reading Bell's book should be more humility
and more passion for the souls of men and the works of God.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

who pays for what most people call "health insurance" (employees, employers, taxpayers)

The bad:"Premiums averaged $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that..."

Bro, employees "pay for" all of it-- some directly and the rest indirectly (through lower compensation in other forms). It's not helpful to write such things in such ways.

The missing:"Employees at companies with many low-wage workers pay more money for skimpier insurance than what their counterparts at upscale firms get."

All things equal, low-wage workers will want to devote less money (although perhaps a higher percentage) to "health insurance"-- similar to their willingness to devote less money to many other things, compared to higher-wage workers.

And given the progressivity of the tax code, lower-wage workers do not have as strong of an incentive to hide their compensation from taxes (compared to higher-wage workers). The progressivity of the tax code means that a broad subsidy for health care will necessarily be regressive. This is what most people in the old political parties consider to be "good policy choices".

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

the jacked-up federal budget: thank you Bush, Obama and Congress

Some really messed-up factoids about the federal government's budget in 2012:

-spending exceeds revenues by more than 50%-spending on mandatory ("entitlement") programs and interest exceed all revenues-compared to 2012, the Obama budget for 2013 predicts a 47% increase in corporate taxes and a 17% increase in income/payroll taxes-compared to 2012, the Obama budget predicts an 81% increase in corporate taxes and a 26% increase in income/payroll taxes

With those increases in taxes, I wonder what they're predicting about the impact on prices, spending, jobs and the economy?

About Me

First and foremost, I am saved by God's grace as manifested most clearly through the atoning death of Jesus Christ-- and thus, adopted into His family. As a result, I increasingly seek to extend His grace to others in my daily life. On the home front, I am a husband and father to four young boys (two by adoption and two the more conventional way). Professionally, I am an economist who loves to teach and is active in public policy circles. Vocationally, I am an active writer and the author of three books (one on the book of Joshua; two on public policy-- one secular, one Christian). Finally, I am the co-author of a 21-month discipleship curriculum, Thoroughly Equipped, for developing competent lay-leaders in the Church.